Myth: The 27th Amendment is an ‘obituary of the Supreme Court’. Reality: An institution is not abolished because its jurisdiction is rationalised. The Supreme Court remains the apex appellate court for civil, criminal and statutory matters. What shifts is constitutional interpretation, not institutional existence. More than 80 countries separate their constitutional court from their supreme appellate court, including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, South Africa, Indonesia, Turkey, South Korea and Austria. Is this death or specialisation?
Myth: The 27th Amendment ‘fulfils Zia’s or Musharraf’s dream of judicial collapse’.
Reality: General Zia suspended the constitution. General Musharraf suspended judges. The 27th Amendment seeks to restructure courts through parliament. Does this amount to constitutional reform or constitutional capture?
Myth: The 27th Amendment will reduce the Supreme Court to a district court.
Reality: This reflects a misunderstanding of Pakistan’s judicial architecture. District courts resolve facts. Appellate courts resolve law. The Supreme Court will continue to interpret statutory law, decide final appeals, set binding appellate precedent and remain the court of last appeal in all non-constitutional matters. No district court does any of that.
Myth: The 27th Amendment will erase precedence; ‘FCC will be above everything’.
Reality: Precedent will not be erased -- the source of constitutional precedent will be reassigned (if the amendment passes). Right now, Pakistan has one court doing appellate law and constitutional law. The 27th Amendment, if passed, will split final appellate law -- civil, criminal and statutory -- to the Supreme Court and final constitutional law to the FCC. This is not erasure. This is constitutional ordering.
Myth: The 27th Amendment will ‘demolish, not reform’.
Reality: Demolition is when institutions collapse. Reform is when institutions specialise. Right now, Pakistan’s judiciary has 2.2 million pending cases. Right now, constitutional petitions are competing with bail matters. The 27th Amendment, if passed, creates a dedicated constitutional court; a separate appellate hierarchy, a clear division of jurisdiction. And, less judicial overload. Is this demolition or load-bearing redesign?
Myth: The 27th Amendment ‘buries the Supreme Court’.
Reality: The 27th Amendment takes the constitution out of logjam and backlog -- and places it into a court designed to do only one job, and do it well.
Myth: The 27th Amendment will silence dissenting or independent judges.
Reality: Dissent is protected by law, not by forum. What the amendment changes is where constitutional questions are finally settled, not who is allowed to dissent. Venue changes. Voice does not.
Myth: Judicial transfers under the amendment amount to ‘exile and punishment’.
Reality: Judicial transfers already exist in the 1973 constitution. India, the world’s largest judicial democracy, transfers high court judges routinely to prevent local influence and courtroom capture. Transfers are not exile. They are a firewall against localised pressure and judicial entrenchment. From a purely economic lens, the World Bank estimates show that judicial delays cost Pakistan 1.5–2 per cent of GDP every year. By reducing uncertainty and transaction friction the 27th Amendment could unlock 0.8-1.2 percentage points in additional GDP growth annually over the next five years -- roughly $4.5 billion a year in economic upside. The 27th Amendment could position Pakistan for a ‘stability dividend,’ potentially elevating credit ratings from B3 to B2 (Moody’s scale). The 27th Amendment is not an obituary but an architecture plan. Not collapse but construction. Not the end but evolution.
